Re: the Boulder story, why is any slight inconvenience to car drivers or any effort to slow them to non-deadly speeds through neighborhoods considered a “war on cars” but when drivers engage in mass hysteria at these efforts and claim persecution for being asked to stop killing people it’s not a “war on bikes and pedestrians”?

TakeFive

If the issue is “dangers posed by reckless driving along major roads and in their neighborhoods” I don’t see how changing the speed limit automatically turns law breakers into non-lawbreakers. In fact it may just create more lawlessness.

As to your false or circular argument perhaps a majority feel it would be more than just a “slight inconvenience.” I assume they can speak for themselves, no? Where is this “mass hysteria” that you speak of; I’d like to check it out?

If safety for bikes and pedestrian is your priority then why not encourage the the city to acquire the necessary ROW (in neighborhoods) and do it right?

John Riecke

Just changing the speed limit doesn’t automatically make people drive more slowly, infrastructure must also be updated in order to give visual cues that a slower speed is necessary.

As for the majority finding it to be more than a mere inconvenience, what level of death, injury, and property damage is required in order to reach the level required to overcome their inconvenience, no matter whether slight or enormous? Two dead bicyclists and a child for major inconvenience, or one injured bicyclist and for injured pedestrians for a slight inconvenience? Those motorists made their choice to live far away from their daily destinations and now people on foot or bike or paying for those choices with their lives. I’m frankly unconcerned with inconveniencing people who made bad choices on where to live.

Regarding mass hysteria, did you not read the papers when the Boulder bike lane was in place and motorists screamed bloody murder at being delayed by entire seconds in order to make biking safer? They caterwauled so loud and so insistently that the Boulder city council was frightened into reversing their decision to proceed with the experiment.

I absolutely support taking ROW from dangerous car drivers and giving it to pedestrians and bicyclists who work, shop, and play locally, making their neighborhoods more vibrant and their cities wealthier.

TakeFive

Just curious? Is this whole “how may deaths does it take” meme an updated version of “if we could save one child’s life”? It has that same sort of decades old “save the children” appeal. Use to use that myself as a matter of fact.

If your primary objective is to save lives I would highly recommend spending the money on the growing opioid – heroin epidemic. Not only the loss of life but the “utter” devastation of families and communities is at stake. Plus I hardly see enriching the coffers of the Mexican cartels as a good thing.

So far as ragging on the choices of where people choose to live, you sir, are being arrogant. Maybe they chose where they could AFFORD to live. I know for a fact that the number one criteria for where most choose to live is based on the school district and neighborhood schools. My guess is that for those who chose to live in Cherry Creek School District for example, would suggest that you stick it in your ear. They don’t care what you think when it comes to deciding what is best for their kids.

Lastly, if the real culprit is reckless/speeding, under the influence of who knows what or inattentive/texting drivers you given no indication why what you want would fix any of that.

MT

Better road design keeps traffic speeds down for all drivers, even ones that would tend to be reckless or inattentive. In fact, it helps force them to pay attention.

John Riecke

I’m arrogant for asking that streets through my neighborhood be safe but people who live in nice school districts and insist in making my streets death traps for me and my neighbors on foot to accommodate their life choices aren’t arrogant? How backwards is that?